The_Ist

I agree.

No, because hate and evil are incompatible with God's positive attributes of love and benevolence. Therefore, the fact that he can't hate or perform evil does not nullify his omnipotence, as I explained in my previous post.

Philosoft

I'm having trouble understanding which attributes nullify omnipotence and which don't. You say God has the attribute "cannot hate," yet this is not a violation of omnipotence. McEar also has the attribute "cannot hate," as well as "cannot smell," "cannot play backgammon," etc. These are all actions that can be performed by possible beings. How do we determine which of these attributes are compatible with omnipotence and which arent?
Ah, I see how "positive attribute" fits now. But I still think you are handwaving over the problem. Omnipotence is about power. By limiting God's possible actions to "to love," you have removed the possible action "to hate." All else equal, it seems that a being that can perform both "to love" and "to hate" is more powerful than a being that can only perform "to love." While "to hate" is logically impossible for a being that can only perform "to love," it is unclear why this is not a nullifier of omnipotence.

The_Ist

This is why I stipulated "positive attributes"; it (seemingly) gets around the problem of parodies such as McEar. The positive attribute that would disallow God from hating (though see below on this issue) is "love," not "cannot hate." The former is a positive attribute, the latter is negative. Since McEar's only positive attribute is "ear-scratching," and there are possible actions he can't do that aren't incompatible with ear-scratching, he isn't omnipotent.

As you may or may not have noticed in my previous posts, I tried to point out that not all theists think that God cannot hate. In fact, I don't think that the position that he cannot is in the majority. For example, Christians usually hold to the position that God hates sin. I was using the attribute of love as an example, I guess, because that was the one being used when I entered the discussion. However, I personally see no reason why God cannot and does not hate.

I do think, however, that there are actions God cannot perform, due to them being incompatible with one of his positive attributes; furthermore, I think that the inability to do certain things actually makes God more powerful than if he could do them. Thus, the inability to do these actions would not nullify his omnipotence.

However, I do not know if this the proper thread/board to get in a detailed discussion regarding such actions.

Philosoft

I think it would work just as well with "to sin" or "to do evil" or some other non-Godly thing.

I think you are allowing your judgement about which abilities are "better" than others to impinge on your argument. It is not clear why omnipotence should value "to love" over "to hate."
I think we're doing okay - the concept of omnipotence is at issue here. I'll moderate myself if necessary.

Unbeliever

Could it be possible that the universe is in the process of becoming God?

Philosoft

Hmm. That sounds awfully neo-pantheistic for an "Unbeliever." Maybe you would like to start a thread about this in Existence of God.

mhc

I think omnipotence simply means "all-powerful"
THere is nothing beyond the power of an omnipotent being.
Surely this means that it is futile to try to comprehend such a being, much less analyze his potential states.
An omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws of thought, as are we.
An omnipotent being could conceive of a square circle.
It could both be and not be in the same spacetime.

Given our cognitive limitations, and an omnipotent being's lack of same, any attributes we could hang on an omnipotent being are just conjecture. There is no hope of knowing such a thing.

I appreciate theists who accept this. Kant said God was unknowable through reason. Wittgenstein said : of that which we can know nothing we must remain silent. (Now there's good advice.)

Despite theologian's attempts to make religious belief pertinent, omnipotence ensures that we cannot speak of God in any rational way as a being. All we can reasonably discuss are the various ideas we have about God, knowing that we are only refering to ourselves and our beliefs, nothing more.

Dr. Retard

OK, so I need to know what "that being" refers to. The first being, or the hypothetical being?

(Also, "positive attributes"?)

Unbeliever

Yes, I can see how that might sound "awfully neo-pantheistic" if I had expressed a belief in such a future God, but I didn't. I was merely posing a question, which I should have stated more clearly. I seem to have this ability to entertain a notion without accepting it, so often when I discuss things, people get the idea that I'm expressing belief in the idea.

But let me clarify my question: the God I'm thinking about is certainly not supernatural, by any means. It refers to a possible future state of the universe in which life has gained control over all matter and forces, at which time it would have gained some attributes that we would consider very God-like. But, of course "God" is the wrong term for it. My mistake! It's just that I can think of no other term that seems quite appropriate.

In reference to the omnipotence of any proposed deity, it seems to me that the equation E=Mc^2 would rule out such a notion. For if God was omnipotent, he would have infinite energy, which would (according to the equation) amount to infinite mass. And we just don't observe infinite mass in our universe, since there are only some 10^80 subatomic particles. Hence, no omnipotent God.

Mageth

Unbeliever:

Could it be possible that the universe is in the process of becoming God?

Been reading Frank Tipler?